Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.pdf - Bennie Blount Ministries

BennieBlount.com
WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH
ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
by
H.A. IRONSIDE, Litt.D.
Table of Contents
1. What is Ultra-Dispensationalism?
2. The Four Gospels and Their Relation to the Church
3. The Transitional Period - Is the Church of The Acts the Body of Christ?
4. When Was the Revelation of the Mystery of the One Body Given?
5. Further Examination of the Epistles
6. Is the Church the Bride of the Lamb?
7. Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God?
8. Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER ONE
What is Ultra-Dispensationalism?
"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2: 15).
PAUL'S exhortation to the younger preacher, Timothy, has come home to many with great power in recent years. As a
result, there has been a return to more ancient methods of Bible study, which had been largely neglected during the
centuries of the Church's drift from apostolic testimony. Augustine's words have had a re-affirmation: "Distinguish
the ages, and the Scriptures are plain." And so there has been great emphasis put in many quarters, and rightly so, upon
the study of what is commonly known as "dispensational" truth. This line of teaching, if kept within Scriptural
bounds, cannot but prove a great blessing to the humble student of the Word of God who desires to know His will or
plan in His dealings with men from creation to the coming glory. A careful examination of the volume of Revelation
shows that God's ways with men have differed in various ages. This must be taken into account if one would properly
apprehend His truth.
The word "dispensation" is found several times in the pages of our English Bible and is a translation of the Greek
word "oikonomia." This word, strictly speaking, means "house order." It might be translated "administration," "order,"
or "stewardship." In each successive age, God gives to men of faith a certain stewardship, or makes known to them a
certain order or administration, in accordance with which they are responsible to behave. A dispensation then is a
period of time in which God is dealing with men in some way in which He has not dealt with them before. Only when
a new revelation from God is given, does a dispensation change. Moreover, there may be degrees of revelation in one

dispensation; all, however, having to do with a fuller unfolding of the will of God for that particular age. This was
very definitely true in the dispensation of law, from Moses to Christ. We have the various revelations: of Sinai, both
the first and second giving of the law; then added instructions during the wilderness years; the covenant with David;
and the revelations given to the prophets. The circumstances in which God's people were found changed frequently
during this age of law, but the dispensation itself continued from Sinai until Jesus cried, "It is finished." It is important
to have this in mind, otherwise the vast scope of an ever unfolding dispensation may be lost sight of, and one might
get the idea that every additional revelation of truth in a given age changed the dispensation, whereas it only enlarges
it.
One may illustrate a dispensation in a very simple way, remembering that the word really means "house order," and I
might add, the Greek word has been Anglicized, and we know it as "economy." Let us suppose a young woman whom
we will call Mary, is going out into service. She obtains a position in a humble home belonging to a good family of
the working class. There are certain rules governing that home which she must learn to observe. All perhaps is not
plain to her at once, but as time goes on, she learns more and more fully the desires of her mistress. We will say she is
to rise at five every morning and begin to prepare the breakfast and put up the lunches for those who go out to work.
At six she is to ring the rising bell; at half-past six the family are supposed to be at the breakfast-table; and at seven
they leave for work. Dinner of course is at a certain hour at night, and in the meantime she has her different duties to
perform in keeping the house in order. She learns quite thoroughly the domestic economy of this particular home and
becomes a well-qualified household servant. Now let us suppose that later on she finds that a cook and housekeeper is
needed for the large mansion on the hill. She applies for the position and is accepted. Moving in, her mistress
undertakes to instruct her in the economy of the new home, but Mary says, "You need not give me any instructions,
Ma'am, I know exactly how a house should be run. just leave it to me and everything will be attended to properly. I
have had some years of experience in housekeeping and I would not have asked for the position if I did not know what
was required." Her mistress is dubious, but, for the time being, acquiesces.
The next morning, the waking-gong sounds at six o'clock. The family, who are accustomed to banker's hours during
the day and are given to very late hours at night, are astonished and chagrined at being aroused so early. The mistress
calls down to the housekeeper, "What does this mean?" and learns that breakfast will be on the table in half-an-hour.
"Why, Mary," she exclaims; "we never breakfast here until half-past eight."
"But the breakfast is hot and the lunches are all ready, Ma'am."
"No one carries lunches in this home. You see, Mary, you do not understand the arrangement here. I shall have to
instruct you carefully today." And poor bewildered Mary learns the importance of dispensational truth!
The illustration, I know, is crude, but I think any one will see the point. God had one order for the house of Israel.
There is another order for the house of God, the Church of the living God today. There will be a different order in the
millennial age, and there have been varying orders in the past.
All this comes out clearly in the pages of Holy Scripture, and is certainly involved in the expression in our English
Bibles, "rightly dividing the Word of Truth." Of course, this expression is not by any means to be limited to
dispensational teaching. It also implies putting each great doctrine of the Word in its right place. It has been
translated, "cutting in a straight line the Word of Truth," that is, not confounding or confusing things that differ. It
even suggests the thought of honestly facing the Word of Truth.
It is right here then that we need to be careful, and not read into the Word of God ideas out of our own minds which
are not really there. Through doing this, some have ignored dispensational truth altogether. Others have swung to an
ultra-dispensationalism which is most pernicious in its effect upon one's own soul and upon testimony for God
generally. Of these ultra-dispensational systems, one in particular has come into prominence of late years, which, for
want of a better name, is generally called "Bullingerism," owing to the fact that it was first advocated some years ago
by Dr. E. W. Bullinger, a clergyman of the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the
notes of "The Companion Bible," a work partly edited by Dr. Bullinger, though he died before it was completed. This
Bible has many valuable features and has been a help in certain respects to God's servants who have used it

conservatively, but it contains interpretations which are utterly subversive of the truth. Some of Dr. Bullinger's
positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching, as, for instance, the sleep of the
soul between death and resurrection; and it is a most significant fact that while he did not apparently fully commit
himself to any eschatological position as to the final state of the impenitent, most of his followers in Great Britain
have gone off into annihilation, and there is quite a sect in America who began with his teaching who now are
restorationists of the broadest type, teaching what they are pleased to call universal reconciliation, which to their minds
involves the final salvation not only of all men, but of Satan and all the fallen angels. These two views, diverse as
they are, are nevertheless the legitimate offspring of the ultra-dispensational system to which we refer.
The present writer has been urged by many for years to take up these questions, but has always heretofore shrunk from
doing so; first, because of the time and labor involved, which seemed out of all proportion to the possible value of such
an examination; and secondly, because of a natural shrinking from controversy, remembering the word, "The servant
of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose
themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." But the rapid spread of
these pernicious views and their evident detrimental effect upon so many who hold them, has led to the conclusion that
it would be unfaithfulness to God and to His people if one refused to seek to give any help he could in regard to these
teachings.
Briefly, then, what are the outstanding tenets of Bullingerism and its kindred systems? For one needs to remember
that a number are teaching these ultra-dispensational things who declare that they are not familiar with the writings of
Dr. Bullinger, and repudiate with indignation the name of "Bullingerism." There are perhaps six outstanding positions
taken by these teachers:
First, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was "a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers," it
is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church, the Body of Christ. All
might not put it quite as boldly as this, but certainly their disciples go to the limit in repudiating the authority of the
Gospels.
Secondly, it is maintained that the book of Acts covers a transition period between the dispensation of the law and the
dispensation of the mystery; that is, that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that
the word "ekklesia" (church, or assembly), as used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether to that of Paul's
prison epistles. This earlier Church is simply an aspect of the kingdom and is not the same as the Body of Christ!
Third, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment
in Rome, and that his prison epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy
Scriptures given to members of the Body. All of the other epistles of Paul, save those written during his imprisonment
and the general epistles, are relegated to the earlier dispensation of the book of Acts, and have no permanent value for
us, but were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish church of that time.
Fourth, the entire book of Revelation has to do with the coming age and has no reference to the Church today. Even
the letters to the seven churches in Asia, which are distinctly said to be "the things which are," are, according to this
system, to be considered as "the things which are not," and will not be until the Church, the Body of Christ, is
removed from this world. Then, it is contended, these seven churches will appear on the earth as Jewish churches in
the Great Tribulation.
Fifth, the Body of Christ is altogether a different company, according to these teachers, from the Bride of the Lamb,
the latter being supposed to be Jewish.
Sixth, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul is supposed to have received his revelation of the
mystery in prison, have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore, are relegated to the past, and may
again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.*
*As to this, these ultra-dispensationalists differ. Most of them reject water baptism entirely for this age. All of them
are not prepared to go so far in connection with the Lord's Supper, but many of them repudiate it too.

Besides these six points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by various disciples who began
with these views and have been rapidly throwing overboard other Scriptural teachings. Many Bullingerites boldly
advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, or, as we have seen,
universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and, gravest of
all, the personality of the Holy Spirit. All of these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism. Once men take
up with this system there is no telling how far they will go, and what their final position will be in regard to the great
fundamental truths of Christianity. It is because of this that one needs to be on his guard, for it is as true of systems as
it is of teachers, "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no
hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and
breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has
lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt
upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has
absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of
this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth. Instead of rightly
dividing the Word, I shall seek to show that these teachers wrongly divide the Word, and that their propaganda is
anything but conducive to spirituality and enlightenment in divine things.
CHAPTER TWO
The Four Gospels and Their Relation to the Church
HOWEVER they may differ in regard to minor details of their various systems, practically all ultra-dispensationalists
are a unit in declaring that the four Gospels must be entirely relegated to a past dispensation (in fact, according to most
of them, they are pushed two dispensations back), and, therefore, are not to be considered as in any sense applying to
this present age. It is affirmed with the utmost assurance that the Gospels are wholly Jewish. Inasmuch as we are told
in the Epistle to the Romans (15: 8), that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to
confirm the promises made unto the fathers," the position is taken that the records of the Evangelists deal solely with
this phase of things, and that there is nothing even in the utterances of our Lord Himself in those books that has any
special place for the present dispensation.
Yet a careful consideration of the very passage in which these words are found would seem to negative this entire
theory and prove that it is absolutely groundless, for when the apostle is stressing true Christian behavior, he refers the
saints back to the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus when here on earth. Notice the opening verses of Romans 15.
We are told that the "strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, and not seek to please themselves, but that each
one should have in mine the edification of his neighbor," having Christ as our great example, "who pleased not
Himself, but of whom it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on Me."
We are then definitely informed that not only what we have in the four Gospels, but what we have in all the Old
Testament is for us, "for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through
patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Here there is no setting aside of an earlier revelation as
though it had no message for the people of God in a later day simply because dispensations have changed. Spiritual
principles never change; moral responsibility never changes, and the believer who would glorify God in the present
age must manifest the grace that was seen in Christ when He walked here on earth during the age that is gong. It is
perfectly true that He came in exact accord with Old Testament prophecy and came under the law, in order that He
might deliver those who were under the law from that bondage. He was in reality a minister of the circumcision for
the truth of God, not-observe-to fulfil at His first coming the promises made unto the fathers, but to confirm them.
This He did by His teaching and His example. He assures Israel even in setting them to one side, that the promises
made beforehand shall yet have their fulfilment.

But, observe, it is upon this very fact that the apostle bases present grace going out to the Gentiles, for he adds in verse
9:
"And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy; as it is written: For this cause I will confess to
Thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto Thy name. And again He saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His
people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud Him, all ye people. And again, Esaias saith,
There shall be a Root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in Him shall the Gentiles
trust" (vers. 9-12).
Here, while not for a moment ignoring that revelation of the mystery of which he speaks in the closing chapter, Paul
shows that the present work of God in reaching out in grace to the Gentiles, is in full harmony with Old Testament
Scripture, while going far beyond anything that the Old Testament prophets ever dreamed of, and then he adds:
"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope through the
power of the Holy Ghost" (ver. 13).
While there is a change of dispensation, there is no rude severing of Old Testament or Gospel revelation from that of
the present age. The one flows naturally out of the other, and the ways of God are shown to be perfectly harmonious.
This being so in connection with the Old Testament, how much more does the same principle apply in connection with
the four Gospels. While fully recognizing their dispensational place, and realizing that our Lord is presented in the
three Synoptics as offering Himself as King and the kingdom of Heaven as such to Israel, only to meet with everincreasing
rejection, yet it should be plain to any spiritual mind that the principles of the kingdom which He sets forth
are the same principles that should hold authority over the hearts of all who acknowledge the Lordship of Christ. In
john's Gospel the case is somewhat different, for there Christ is seen as the rejected One from the very beginning. It is
in chapter one that we read, "He came unto His own and His own received Him not." Then based upon that, we have
the new and fuller revelation which runs throughout that Gospel of grace, flowing out to all men who have no merit
whatever in themselves.
But in Matthew, which is preeminently the dispensational Gospel, the Lord is presented as the Son of David first of
all. Then when it is evident that Israel will refuse His claims, He is presented in the larger aspect of Son of Abraham
in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. The break with the leaders of the nation comes in chapter twelve,
where they definitely ascribe the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil. In doing this, they become guilty of blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, the crowning sin of that dispensation, which our Lord declares could not be forgiven either in
that age or in the one to follow. In chapter thirteen, we have an altogether new ministry beginning. The Lord for the
first time opens up the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, revealing things that had been kept secret from the
foundation of the world, namely the strange and unlooked-for form that the kingdom would take here on earth after
Israel had rejected the King and He had returned to Heaven. This is set forth in the seven parables of that chapter, and
gives us the course of Christendom during all the present age.
As a rule, the ultra-dispensationalists would ignore all this and push these seven parables forward into the tribulation
era after the Church, the Body of Christ, has been taken out of this scene. But this is to do violence to the entire
Gospel and to ignore utterly the history of the past 1900 years. just as in Revelation two and three we have an outline
of the history of the professing Church presented under the similitude of the seven letters, so in Matthew 13 we have
the course of Christendom in perfect harmony with the Church letters, portrayed in such a way as to make clear the
distinction between the Church that man builds and that which is truly of God. In chapter sixteen of Matthew's
Gospel, the Lord declares for the first time that He is going to build a Church or assembly. This assembly is to be
built upon the Rock, the confession of the apostle Peter that Christ is the Son of the living God. How utterly vain it is
to try to separate this declaration from the statement in the Ephesian Epistle where we read,

"Now therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the
household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple
in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (2: 19-22).
Here in the preeminent prison epistle of which so much is made by the Bullingerites, you find that the Church then in
existence is the Church our Lord spoke of building when He was here in the days of His flesh. The discipline of that
Church is given in Matthew 18: 15-20:
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone;
if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or
two more, that in the -mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall
neglect to bear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as
an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if
two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My
Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the
midst of them."
In Matthew sixteen you have the assembly as a whole, comprising all believers during the present dispensation. Here
in chapter eighteen, you have the local assembly in the position of responsibility on earth, and its authority to deal with
evil-doers in corrective discipline.
The complete setting aside of Israel for the present age is given us in chapter 23: 37-39,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killst the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how
often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not! Behold, your house -is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me
henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord."
In the light of the words, "Your house is left unto you desolate," how amazing the presumption that would lead any to
declare, as practically all these extreme dispensationalists do declare, that Israel is being given a second trial
throughout all the book of Acts, and that their real setting aside does not take place until Paul's meeting with the elders
of the Jews after his imprisonment in Rome, as recorded in the last chapter of Acts. The fact of the matter is that the
book of Acts opens with the setting aside of Israel until the day when they shall say, "Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord." That is His second glorious coming. In the interval, God is saving out of Israel as well as of the
Gentiles, all who turn to Him in repentance.
In Matthew twenty-four, we are carried on to the days immediately preceding that time when the Son of Man shall
appear in glory, and we find the people of Israel in great distress, but a remnant called His "elect" shall be saved in
that day.
I pass purposely over chapter twenty-five as having no particular bearing on the outline, because a careful
consideration of it would take more time and space than is here available. The closing chapters give us the death and
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then the commission of His apostles. People who have never investigated
Bullingerism and its kindred systems will hardly believe me when I say that even the great commission upon which the
Church has acted for 1900 years, and which is still our authority for world-wide missions, is, according to these
teachers, a commission with which we have nothing whatever to do, that has no reference to the Church at all, and that
the work there predicted will not begin until taken up by the remnant of Israel in the days of the Great Tribulation. Yet

such is actually the teaching. In view of this, let us carefully read the closing verses of the Gospel:
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And
when they saw Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world. Amen" (28: 16-20).
According to the Bullingeristic interpretation of this passage, we should have to paraphrase it somewhat as follows:
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they
saw Him, they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto Me in heaven and earth, and after two entire dispensations have rolled by, I command that the remnant of Israel
who shall be living two thousand or more years later, shall go out and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them in that day to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you, but from which I absolve all believers between the present hour and that coming age, and lo, I will
be with that remnant until the close of Daniel's seventieth week." Can anything be more absurd, more grotesque-and I
might add, more wicked-than thus to twist and misuse the words of our Lord Jesus Christ?
In view of all this, may I direct my reader's careful attention to the solemn statement of the apostle Paul, which is
found in I Timothy, chapter 6. After having given a great many practical exhortations to Timothy as to the instruction
he was to give to the churches for their guidance during all the present age, the apostle says,
"If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ' and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting
about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse
disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such
withdraw thyself" (I Tim. 6:3-5).
One would almost think that this was a direct command to Timothy to beware of Bullingerism! Notice, Timothy is to
withdraw himself from, that is, to have no fellowship with, those who refuse the present authority of the words of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Where do you get those actual words? Certainly in the four Gospels. There are very few actual
words of the Lord Jesus Christ scattered throughout the rest of the New Testament. Of course there is a sense in
which all the New Testament is from Him, but the apostle is clearly referring here to the actual spoken words of our
Saviour, which have been recorded for the benefit of the saints, and which set forth the teaching that is in accordance
with godliness or practical piety. If a man refuses these words, whether on the plea that they do not apply to our
dispensation, or for any other reason, the Spirit of God declares it is an evidence of intellectual or spiritual pride. Such
men ordinarily think they know much more than others, and they look down from their fancied heights of superior
Scriptural understanding with a certain contempt, often not untinged with scornful amusement, upon godly men and
women who are simply seeking to take the words of the Lord Jesus as the guide for their lives.
But here we are told that such "know nothing," but are really in their spiritual dotage, "doting about questions and
strifes of words." The dotard is generally characterized by frequent repetition of similar expressions. We know how
marked this symptom is in those who have entered upon a state of physical and intellectual senility. Spiritual dotage
may be discerned in the same way. A constant dwelling upon certain expressions as though these were all important,
to the ignoring of the great body of truth, is an outstanding symptom. The margin, it will be observed, substitutes the
word "sick" for "doting;" "word-sickness" is an apt expression. The word-sick man over-estimates altogether the
importance of terms. He babbles continually about expressions which many of his brethren scarcely understand. He is
given to misplaced emphasis, making far more of fine doctrinal distinctions than of practical godly living. As a result,
his influence is generally baneful instead of helpful, leading to strife and disputation instead of binding the hearts of

the people of God together in the unity of the Spirit.
The well-known passage in the closing chapter of Mark's Gospel, which gives us another aspect of the great
commission, having to do particularly with the apostles, is a. favorite battleground with the ultra-dispensationalists.
Ignoring again the entire connection, they insist that the commission given in verses fifteen and eighteen could only
apply during the days of the book of Acts, inasmuch as certain signs were to follow them that believe. As the
commission in Matthew has been relegated by them to the Great Tribulation after the Christian age has closed, this one
is supposed to have had its fulfilment before the present mystery dispensation began, and so has no real force now.
They point out, what to them seems conclusive, that in this commission, as of course that in Matthew, water baptism is
evidently linked with a profession of faith in Christ. They are perfectly hydrophobic as to this. The very thought of
water sets them foaming with indignation. There must on no account be any recognition of water baptism during the
present age. It must be gotten rid of at all costs. So here where we read that our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall
be damned" (Mark 16: 15,16), which would seem to indicate world-wide evangelism, looking out to the proclamation
of the glad glorious Gospel of God to lost men everywhere, this commission must nevertheless be gotten rid of
somehow. The way they do it is this: The Lord declares that certain signs shall follow when this Gospel is
proclaimed. These signs evidently followed in the days of the Acts. They declare they have never followed since.
Therefore, it is evident that water baptism is only to go on so long as the signs follow. If the signs have ceased, then
water baptism ceases. The signs are not here now, therefore no water baptism. How amazingly clear (!!), though, as
we shall see in a moment, absolutely illogical. The signs accompanied preaching the Gospel. Why continue to preach
if such signs are not now manifest?
The Matthew commission makes it plain that baptism in the name of the Trinity is to go on to the end of the age, and
that age has not come to an end yet, whatever changes of dispensation may have come in. Now what of this
commission in Mark? Observe first of all that our Lord is not declaring that the signs shall follow believers in the
Gospel which is to be proclaimed by the Lord's messengers. The signs were to follow those of the apostles who
believed, and they did. There were some of them who did not believe. See verse eleven: "And they, when they had
heard that He was alive and had been seen of her, believed not." Then again, notice verse thirteen: "They went and
told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." And in the verse that follows, we read: "Afterward He appeared
unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they
believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." Now our Lord commissions the eleven, sends them forth
to go to the ends of the earth preaching the Gospel to every creature. There is nothing limited here. It is not a Jewish
commission. It has nothing to do with the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It is a world-wide commission to go to
all the Gentiles, and to go forth preaching the Word. Responsibility rests upon those who hear. They are to believe
and be baptized. Those who do are recognized among the saved. On the other hand, He does not say, "He that is not
baptized shall be damned," because baptism was simply an outward confession of their faith, but He does say, "He that
believeth not shall be damned."
Then in verses seventeen and eighteen, we have what Paul later called "the signs of an apostle."
"These signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
During all the period of the book of Acts, these signs did follow the apostles. More than that, if we can place the least
reliance upon early Church history, the same signs frequently followed other servants of Christ, as they went forth in
obedience to this commission, and this long after the imprisonment of the apostle Paul. We should expect this from
the closing verses of Mark:
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand
of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the

Word with signs following" (Mark 16:19,20).
In this last verse, Mark covers the evangelization of the world (not merely a message going out to the Jews), during all
the years that followed until the last of the apostles, John himself, had disappeared from the scene. I do not mean to
intimate that Mark knew this, but I do mean that the Spirit of God caused him so to write this closing verse as to cover
complete apostolic testimony right on to its consummation. They preached everywhere, not simply in connection with
Israel. Yet in the face of this, the statement has been made over and over again by these ultradispensationalists, that
the twelve never went to the Gentiles, excepting in the case of the apostle Peter and a few similar instances. The
statement has also been made that all miracles ceased with Paul's imprisonment, that there were no miracles
afterwards. What superb ignorance of Church history is here indicated, and what an absurd position a man puts
himself in who commits himself to negatives like these! An eminent logician has well said, "Never commit yourself to
a negative, for that supposes that you are in possession of all the facts." If a man says there were no miracles wrought
in the Church after the imprisonment of the apostle Peter, it means, if that statement is true, that he has thorough
knowledge of all that has taken place in every land on earth where the Gospel has been preached, in all the centuries
since the days of Paul's imprisonment, and knows all the work that every servant of Christ has ever done. Otherwise
he could not logically and rationally make such a statement.
What then is the conclusion? It is wrongly dividing the Word of Truth to seek to rob Christians of the precious
instruction given by our Lord Jesus in the four Gospels, though fully recognizing their dispensational place. It is an
offense against Christian missions everywhere to try to set aside the great commission for the entire present age. It is
not true that a definite limit is placed in Scripture upon the manifestation of sign gifts, and that such gifts have never
appeared since the days of the apostles.
CHAPTER THREE
The Transitional Period
Is the Church of The Acts the Body of Christ?
HERE is perhaps nothing about which the ultradispensationalists are more certain, according to their own expressions,
than that the book of the Acts covers a transitional period, coming in between the age of the law and the present age in
which the dispensation of the mystery has been revealed. They do not always agree as to the name of this intervening
period. Some call it the Kingdom Church; others the Jewish Church; and there are those who prefer the term
Pentecostal Dispensation. The general teaching is about as follows: It is affirmed that the coming of the Holy Spirit on
the day of Pentecost and His baptizing the one hundred and twenty and those who afterwards believed, did not have
anything to do with the formation of the Church, the Body of Christ. On the contrary, they insist that the Church
throughout all of the book of Acts up to Paul's imprisonment was of an altogether lower order than that of the Epistle
to the Ephesians. Assemblies in Judea, Samaria, and the various Gentile countries, were simply groups of believers
who were waiting for the manifestation of the kingdom, and had not yet come into the full liberty of grace. The
ordinances of the Lord's Supper and of baptism were linked with these companies and were to continue only until
Israel had definitely and finally refused the Gospel message, after which the full revelation of the mystery is supposed
to have been given to the apostle Paul when he was imprisoned at Rome. From that time on a new dispensation
began. Surely this is wrongly confounding the Word of Truth. How any rational and spiritually-minded person could
ever come to such a conclusion after a careful reading of the book of Acts, and with it the various epistles addressed to
the churches and peoples mentioned in that book, is more than some of us can comprehend. Let us see what the facts
actually are.
In the first place, it is perfectly plain that the Church, the Body of Christ, was formed by the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. Very definitely this term is used of that great event which took place at Pentecost and was repeated in measure
in Cornelius' household. In each instance the same exact expression is used. Referring to Pentecost, our Lord says,
"Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1: 5). Referring to the event that took place in
Cornelius' household, Peter says:

"Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us,
who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was 1, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11: 16,17).
In 1 Corinthians 12: 12, 13, we read:
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
Here we are distinctly informed as to the way in which the Body has been brought into existence, and this is exactly
what took place at Pentecost. Individual believers were that day baptized into one Body, and from then on the Lord
added to the Church daily such as were saved. It is a significant fact that if you omit this definite passage in I
Corinthians, there is no other verse in any epistle that tells us in plain words just how the Body is formed; although we
might deduce this from Ephesians 4: 4, where we read: "There is one Body and one Spirit." Undoubtedly this refers to
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which the Body is formed, in contradistinction to water baptism in the next verse.
But this is simply interpretation, and all might not agree as to it. But there can surely be no question as to the
application of the passage in 1 Corinthians 12: 13. Yet, singularly enough, the very people who insist that the Body is
formed by the Spirit's baptism, declare that these Corinthians were not members of the Body, nor did that Body come
into existence until at least four or five years afterwards.
A careful reading of the book of Acts shows us the gradual manner in which the truth of the new dispensation was
introduced, and this is what has led some to speak of this book as covering a transitional period. Personally, I have no
objection to the term "transitional period," if it be understood that the transition was in the minds of men and not in the
mind of God. According to God, the new dispensation, that in which we now live, the dispensation of the grace of
God, otherwise called the dispensation of the mystery, began the moment the Spirit descended at Pentecost. That
moment the one Body came into existence, though at the beginning it was composed entirely of believers taken out
from the Jewish people. But in the minds even of the disciples, there was a long period before they all fully entered
into the special work that God had begun to do. Many of them, in fact, probably never did apprehend the true
character of this dispensation, as we shall see further on.
The position is often taken that the twelve apostles were very ignorant of what the Lord was really doing, and that their
entire ministry was toward Israel. Have not such teachers forgotten that during the forty days that the Lord appeared to
His disciples before ascending to Heaven, He taught them exactly what His program was, and the part they were to
have in it? In Acts 1: 3, 4, we read:
"He also showed Himself alive after His passion by many in fallible proofs, being seen of them forty days,
and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and being assem bled together with them,
commanded them that they should no; depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,
which, saith He, ye have heard of Me."
And it was then that He distinctly told them of the coming baptism of the Holy Spirit. According to the divine plan,
the Gospel message was first to be proclaimed in Jerusalem,, then Judea, then Samaria, and then unto the uttermost
parts of the earth. This is exactly what we find in the book of Acts. The earlier chapters give us the proclamation in
Jerusalem and Judea. Then we have Philip going down to Samaria, followed by John and Peter. Later Peter goes to
the house of Cornelius, and he and his household, believing the Gospel, are baptized by the same Spirit into the same
Body. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus prepares the way for a world-wide ministry, he being specifically chosen of

God for that testimony.
But before Saul's conversion, there were churches of God in many cities, and these churches of God together formed
the Church of God; churches signifying local companies, but the Church of God taking in all believers. Years
afterwards, Paul writes, "I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it" (Gal. 1: 13). And again, "For I am the least of
the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (I Cor. 15: 9). The
Church of God was to him one whole. It was exactly the same Church of God as that of which he speaks in 1
Timothy 3: 15, when, writing to the younger preacher, he says: "That thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself 'in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." In the
meantime he had been cast into prison and had written all the rest of the so-called prison epistles, with the exception,
of course, of Titus, which was written while he was at liberty, between his imprisonments, and 2 Timothy, which was
written during his second imprisonment.*
(* I make this statement on the supposition that the note at the end of I Timothy is correct, namely that the epistle was
written from Laodicea, a place not visited by Paul before his first imprisonment. If written earlier the argument does
not apply, except to show that Paul ever recognized the Church of God as one and undivided.)
There is no hint of any difference having come in to distinguish the Church of God which he says he persecuted, from
the Church of God in which Timothy was recognized as a minister of the Word. It is one and the same Church
throughout.
Going back to Acts then, we notice that after his conversion, Paul is definitely set apart as the apostle to the Gentiles,
and yet everywhere he goes, he first seeks out his Jewish brethren after the flesh, because it was God's purpose that the
Gospel should be made known to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. In practically every city, the same results
follow. A few of the Jews receive the message; the bulk of them reject it. Then Paul turns from the Jews to the
Gentiles, and thus the message goes out to the whole world. Throughout all of this period, covered by the ministries
of Peter and Paul particularly, both baptism in water and the breaking of bread have their place. The signs of an
apostle follow the ministry, God authenticating His Word as His servants go forth in His Name. However, it is
perfectly plain that the nearer we get to the close of the Acts, the less we have in the way of signs and wonders. This
is to be expected. In the meantime various books of the New Testament had been written, particularly Paul's letters to
the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, and the Romans. In all likelihood, the Epistle of James had also been produced,
though we cannot definitely locate the time of its writing. The Epistles of Peter and of John come afterward. They
were not part of the earlier written ministry.
Everywhere that Paul goes, he preaches the kingdom as the Lord Himself has commanded, and finally he reached
Rome a prisoner. There, following his usual custom, though not having the same liberty as in other places, he gets in
touch first with the leaders of the Jewish people, gives them his message, and then tells them that even though they
reject it, yet the purpose of God must be carried out, and the salvation of God sent to the Gentiles. This is supposed by
many to be a dispensational break, but we have exactly the same thing in the thirteenth chapter of Acts. There we read
from verse 44 on, how the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia withstood the Word spoken by Paul, and Paul and Barnabas
waxed bold, and said:
"It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from
you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord
commanded us, saying, I have set Thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that Thou shouldest be or salvation
unto the ends of the earth."
I ask any thoughtful reader: What difference is there between this account of Paul's dealing with the Jews, the
proclamation of grace going out to the Gentiles, and that found in chapter 28 of this same book? In the light of these
two passages, may we not say that if Paul was given liberty, as we know he was, to preach for several years after his
first imprisonment, he undoubtedly still followed exactly the same method of proclaiming the Gospel to the Jew first,
and then to the Gentiles? It is passing strange that these ultra-dispensationalists can overlook a passage like Acts 13,

and then read so much into the similar portion in chapter 28. According to them, as we have pointed out, the
dispensational break occurred at this latter time, after which Paul's ministry, they tell us, took an entirely different
form. It was then that the dispensation of the mystery was revealed to him, they say, which he embodied in his prison
epistles. He was no longer a preacher of the kingdom, but now a minister of the Body. The theory sounds very
plausible until one examines the text of Scripture itself.
Let us look at the last two verses of Acts 28:
"And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
preaching the kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all
confidence, no man forbidding him."
Now observe in chapter one, verse three, our Lord is said to have spoken to His disciples during the forty days of "the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God." In the very last verse of the book, after Paul's supposed later revelation, he
is still "preaching the kingdom of God;" certainly the next phrase, "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus
Christ," implies continuance in exactly the same type of ministry in which he had been engaged before. There is no
hint here of something new.
Now let us go back a little. In chapter 20 of the book of Acts, we find the apostle Paul at Miletus on his way to
Jerusalem. From there he sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. We have a very touching account of his last
interview with them. Among other things, he says to them:
"I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed unto yourselves and to all the
flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God which He hath
purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:27,28).
And then he commends these elders in view of the coming apostasy, not to some new revelation yet to be given, but
"to God and the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all them that are
sanctified." Note particularly the breadth of the statement found in verse 27. "All the counsel of God" had already
been made known through Paul to the Ephesian elders before he went up to Jerusalem for the last time. There is not a
hint of a partial revelation, not a hint of a transitional period, but they already had everything they needed to keep them
until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I venture to say that the better one is acquainted with the book of Acts, the clearer all this will become. It is truly
absurd to attempt to make two Churches out of the redeemed company between Pentecost and the Lord's return. The
Church is one and indivisible. It is the Church that Christ built upon the rock, namely the truth that He is the Son of
the living God. It is the Church of God which He purchased with the blood of His own Son. That Church of God,
Saul in his ignorance, persecuted. Of that same Church of God, he afterwards became a member through the Spirit's
baptism. In that Church of God, Timothy was a recognized minister, not only before, but after Paul's imprisonment.
In regard to the statement so frequently made that God was giving Israel a second chance throughout the book of Acts,
it is evident that there is no foundation whatever for such a statement. Our Lord definitely declared the setting aside of
Israel for this entire age when He said, "Your house is left unto you desolate. Ye shall not see Me again until ye say,
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" It was after that house was left desolate that the glorious
proclamation at Pentecost was given through the power of the Holy Spirit, offering salvation by grace to any in Israel
who repented, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call, which, of course, includes the whole Gentile world. Not
once in any of the sermons recorded of Peter and of Paul do we have a hint that the nation of Israel is still on trial, and
that God is waiting for that nation to repent in this age. On the contrary, the very fact that believers are called upon to
"save themselves from that untoward generation" is evidence of the complete setting aside of Israel nationally, and the
calling out of a select company of those who acknowledge the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. By their baptism, they

outwardly severed the link that bound them to the unbelieving nation, and thus came over onto Christian ground. To
this company, Gentile believers were later added, and these two together constitute the Body of Christ. It is perfectly
true that the Body as such is not mentioned in the book of Acts, and that for a very good reason. In this book, we have
the record of the beginning of the evangelization of the world, which involves, of course, not the revelation of the truth
of the Body, but the proclamation of the kingdom of God, which none can enter apart from the new birth.
A careful study of the epistles, taking particular note of the times at which, and the persons to whom, they were
written. will only serve to make these things clearer.
CHAPTER FOUR
When Was the Revelation of the Mystery of the One Body Given?
IT IS contended by Bullingerites, and others of like ilk, that Paul did not receive the revelation of the mystery of the
one Body until he was imprisoned in Rome, 63 A. D. Generally, too, the ground is taken that this revelation was given
to him alone, and that the twelve knew nothing of it. Let us see if these assertions will stand the test of Holy Scripture.
We shall turn, first of all, directly to the writings of the apostle Paul, and examine the passages in which he refers to
this subject. The first one is found in the Epistle to the Romans which was written, according to the best authorities, in
the year A. D. 60, at least three years before Paul's imprisonment, and certainly some time before he reached Rome, as
in that letter he tells the Romans that he is contemplating the visit to them, and asks them to pray that it might be a
prosperous one. It might seem as though his prayer was not answered inasmuch as he reached Rome in chains, a
prisoner for the Gospel's sake. But God's ways are not ours, and we can be sure that in the light of eternity, we shall
see that this was indeed one of the most prosperous voyages that anyone ever made. Now in closing this epistle to the
Romans, the apostle says in chapter 16, verses 25 to 2 7:
"Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made
manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God,
made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for
ever. Amen."
Here we have the plain statement that Paul's preaching throughout the years had been in accordance with the revelation
of the mystery previously kept secret, but at that time made manifest. Moreover, he intimates that it had been already
published abroad in writing, for he says, "It is made manifest (not exactly by the Scriptures of the prophets, as though
he referred to Old Testament prophets, but) by prophetic writings," that is, his own and others. And this proclamation
of the mystery had been made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.
Does anyone ask, How can any ultra-dispensationalist dare to say in the face of such a Scripture as this, that the
mystery had not been made known and had not been previously preached before Paul was imprisoned at Rome? If a
simple believing Christian, he will probably be amazed at the answer. Dr. Bullinger and others who follow him
suggest that in all likelihood the last three verses of the Epistle to the Romans were not written by Paul when he sent
the letter from some distant Gentile city, but that they were appended to the letter after he reached Rome and received
the new revelation. Is this unbelievable? Nevertheless, it is exactly what these men teach. It is higher criticism of the
worst type and impugns the perfection of the Word of God. For, even supposing their contentions were true, how
absurd it would be for Paul to add these words after he reached Rome, to an epistle purporting to be written before he
got there! And how senseless it would be for him to speak while he was in prison, of a Gospel and a revelation which
he was supposed to have preached in all the world, if he had never yet begun that proclamation. Needless to say, the
contention of Dr. Bullinger is an absolute fabrication. It is the special pleading of a hard-driven controversialist,
bound to maintain his unscriptural system at all costs, even to destroying the unity of the Word of God.
Error is never consistent, and even the astute Bullinger has overlooked the fact that earlier in this very epistle, Paul

declares the truth of the one Body just as clearly and definitely as he does in Ephesians or any later letter. Notice
particularly Romans 12: 4, 5:
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another."
Could we have a clearer declaration than this of the truth of the mystery? What ultra-dispensationalist will dare to say
that this passage is an interpolation added in after years in order to make Romans fit with Ephesians? God's Word is
perfect and always exact. These unspiritual theorists invariably overtook something that completely destroys their
unscriptural hypotheses.
When then did Paul get this revelation of the truth of the one Body? He tells us he had been preaching it throughout
the world among all nations. The answer clearly is, he received it at the time of his conversion, when he cried in
amazement, "Who art Thou, Lord?" and the glorified Saviour answered, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." This was
the revelation of the mystery. In that announcement our Lord declared that every Christian on earth is so indissolubly
linked up with Him as the glorified Head in Heaven, that everything done against one of them is felt by the Head. This
is, the mystery-members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His bones.
And moreover, this is in exact accord with certain statements elsewhere made in the book of Acts. For instance, in
chapter 5, verse 14, we read:
"And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women."
This was before Paul's conversion. Observe it does not simply say that they were added to the company of believers,
nor even added to the assembly alone, but they were added to the Lord. This is only by the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. Quite in keeping with this, when we turn to chapter 11: 22-24, we read concerning the character and ministry
of Barnabas that,
"He was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith: and much people were added unto the
Lord."
Now no one was ever added to the Lord in any other way than by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So that clearly we
have the Body of Christ here in the Acts, although the term itself is not used.
When we turn to 1 Corinthians, the only epistle which gives us divine order for the regulation of the affairs of the
churches of God here on earth, we have the plain statement of this mystery as we have already seen, in chapter 12: 12-
14.
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not
one member, but many."
It is absurd to say, as these ecclesiastical hobby-riders do, that the Body referred to here is not the same thing as the
Body of Ephesians and Colossians. It is a Body made up of those who formerly were Jews or Gentiles, bond or free,
but are now all one in Christ. And this Body has been formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In no other way was
the Body of Christ brought into existence. Objection has been raised that when the apostle goes on to apply practically

the truth of our responsibility as members of the Body in our relation to each other, he uses the illustration of the eye
and ear as members of the head, which, they tell us, he could not use if he thought of Christ as the Head of the Body,
and was thinking of believers as one Body with Him. But he tells us distinctly in the previous chapter that the Head of
every man is Christ. This could only be said of those who were linked with Him in this hallowed fellowship and
members of this divine organism. The great difference, of course, between the Body as presented in Corinthians and
as in Ephesians is this: the Body in Ephesians embraces all saints living or dead as to the flesh, from Pentecost to the
Rapture, whereas the Body in Corinthians embraces all saints upon the earth at any given time. Seen thus in the place
of responsibility, it is quite in keeping that the apostle should use the illustration that he does. It is in vain for these
ultra-dispensationalists to fight against responsibility.
Recently I overheard a leader among them make this statement: "Whenever you get commandments of any kind, you
are on Jewish ground, and you have given up grace." Yet in every epistle of the New Testament, we have
commandments and exhortations insisting upon the believer's responsibility to recognize the government of God in
this way. Grace and government are not opposing principles, but are intimately linked together. He who refuses the
truth of responsibility does not thereby magnify grace, but rather is in danger of turning the grace of God into
lasciviousness and becomes practically an antinomian, throwing off all restraint, professing to be saved by grace, but
refusing to recognize the claims of Christ.
Coming back then to consider the passage in I Corinthians, we have the truth of the Body clearly set forth, and are
shown how it was brought into existence in a letter written at least four years before Paul's imprisonment; and he
writes that letter to a group of believers who had been brought to a knowledge of Christ through his preaching some
years before. To them he says in verses 2 6, 2 7:
"And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honored, all the
members rejoice with it. Now ye are the Body of Christ, and members in particular."
Verse 26 only emphasizes what we have referred to above, that here we have the Body in the place of responsibility on
earth. Members in Heaven do not suffer. All members on earth do. But it is objected again that in the Greek there is
no definite article before the word "body," and therefore the passage should simply read, "Now ye are a Body of
Christ," and so we are told this refers only to a local church. This does not touch the question. Every local church in
apostolic days was the Body of Christ representatively in that place. It would be so today if it were not for the fact that
so many unsaved people have been received into the membership of the local churches. According to the Word of
God, there was only the one Body, and in any city where the Gospel had been preached and believed, that Body could
be found as a local company.
When we pass on to 2 Corinthians, we find the same precious truth ministered by the apostle long before he was
imprisoned at Rome. He tells us, in chapter 5: 16,17:
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (or
literally, this is a new creation): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Could words more plainly set forth the truth of the mystery than these? Old relationships ended and every believer
brought into a new place altogether before God, and a new condition, so that Christ is now his Head, and he a member
of the new creation. And this was part of the preaching that the apostle had been declaring wherever he went during
all the years of his ministry.
We turn next to Galatians, a letter written, according to the best authority we have, a year earlier than Corinthians, and
the ultra-dispensationalists are very sure that when Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ in this letter, there can be
no reference to water baptism, but that he refers solely to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am not in agreement with

them on this; but allowing for the moment that they are correct, then notice where it puts their theory. Note carefully
chapter 3: 26-29:
"For ye are all the children (sons) of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Here again we are distinctly told that all the children of faith, Abraham's seed spiritually, are sons of God, and that all
such as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, and that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor any of
the other distinctions according to nature, but all are one in Him. Is there anything in the revelation of the mystery as
given in Ephesians or Colossians that goes beyond this? It is a clear definite statement of the absolute unity in Christ
of those who before their conversion occupied different positions here on earth, some being Jews, some Gentiles, some
free men, some slaves, some men, some women, but every distinction now obliterated in the new creation.
If any are foolish enough to object, as some have, that Abraham's seed is altogether different from the Body of Christ,
then we turn to Ephesians itself, the epistle which they claim, above all others supports their unscriptural theory, and
find their entire position is there completely disallowed. In the first chapter of this glorious epistle, the apostle reminds
the Ephesians of things that they have learned through his ministry in days gone by. There is no hint that he is opening
up to them something new, but he simply puts down in writing for permanent use, precious things already dear to
them. He reminds them that they have been blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ; that they
have been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world in order that they might be holy and without blame before
Him; that in love, He has predestinated them unto the place of sons by Christ Jesus, having taken them into favor in the
Beloved. Theirs is redemption through His blood, sins all forgiven according to the riches of I-Iis grace, and to them
He has abounded in all wisdom and prudence, having made known the mystery of His will according to His good
pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself (see vers. 3-9). He points them on to the full consummation of this
mystery when in the administration of the completed seasons, that is, the last dispensation, He will head up in one all
things in Christ, both heavenly and earthly, and He reminds them that we have already obtained an inheritance in Him,
being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will.
We need to notice the pronouns used in verses 12 and 13. He first speaks of converts from Israel, when he says, "That
we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ." Then he refers to the Gentiles, such as these
Ephesians had been, when in the next verse he says:
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our
inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory."
Now observe carefully, he is far from intimating that he is at this time unveiling something of which they bad never
heard before. He carries them back in memory to the hour of their conversion, and declares that these things were true
of them then. And, because of this, he prays that they may have deeper understanding, not of new truth about to be
revealed, but of blessed and wonderful things already made known. In the second chapter, he deals specifically with
the new creation, reminding them in verse 12 that they in time past were Gentiles who were called uncircumcision, and
were in themselves without Christ and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope and literally atheists in the world. But now they have been made nigh by the blood of
Christ. The result is that they became members of that same Body into which their converted Jewish brethren had
already been assimilated. Notice carefully verses 14-18:
"For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition
between us: having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments, contained in

ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile
both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to
you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit
unto the Father."
The distinction between Jew and Gentile was abolished in ,the cross, not after Paul's imprisonment in Rome. From
that time on all who believed were brought into the Body of Christ through the one Spirit of verse 18. What were the
means used to effect this? The preaching recorded in the book of Acts, for it is only that to which he can possibly
refer, when he says (vers. 16,17):
"That He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby, and
came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh."
It was necessary that the message should first go to them that were nigh, as it did in the early chapters of Acts, and
then to those that were afar off; but the result of that preaching was that all who believed were reconciled to God in
one Body.
In the last four verses of the chapter he shows the unity of the Church from the beginning. The Church is the
household of God. It is also a great building, and he declares:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the
household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (New Testament
prophets, of course), Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly
framed together groweth (note the tense; it is not yet completed, it is still in process of construction, but it
is growing) unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of
God through the Spirit."
How blind must he be who can see in such a passage as this, disassociation of the Ephesian saints from the work
which God began at Pentecost! They are builded into the same temple and rest upon the same foundation.
This is made even clearer in the next chapter, where Paul gives us probably the fullest information concerning the one
Body that we have anywhere in the New Testament, and, therefore, we must devote considerable time and space to it.
First, he tells us that he was a prisoner of Jesus Christ because of the Gentiles, and he explains that in the next few
verses. It was his devotion to the revelation of the mystery which is part of the dispensation of the grace of God, that
resulted in his imprisonment. He did not get this dispensation after he was in prison. Then he insists that this
revelation was not made in previous ages unto the sons of men, that is, it was not made known in Old Testament
times. But he tells us it is "now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." Now if I believed in
over-emphasis as some do, I should like to print these words in very bold type, but to do so would be an insult to the
intelligence of my readers. I simply desire to ask their most careful attention to these words. The Bullingerites tell us
that the mystery was only made known to the apostle Paul, not to other apostles. The apostle himself tells us here that
"it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets." Note not only the plural, but that others besides apostles had
this revelation. How utterly absurd would words like these be if he were referring to something that had just been
secretly made known to him! But is it true that other apostles and prophets had already known if the mystery? It is.
This he declares in these words. What is that mystery? Verse six is the answer.
"That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same Body, and partakers of His promise in Christ
by the gospel."

Thus they too become Abraham's seed, because they are children of faith.
The mystery then is not simply centered in the term "Body," but whatever expression may be used, the mystery is that
during the present age all distinction between believing Jews and believing Gentiles is done away in Christ. Was this
mystery made known by other servants besides the apostle Paul? It was. The apostle John makes it known in his
account of our Lord's ministry as given in the tenth chapter of his Gospel. There we read that the Lord Jesus, as the
Good Shepherd, entered into the sheepfold of Judaism to lead His own out into glorious liberty. And cryptically He
adds,
"Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and there shall be one flock and
one Shepherd."
This is perhaps the earliest intimation of the mystery that we have. It was not committed to writing, of course, until
some years after the epistle to the Ephesians was written. But it shows us that John, as an apostle of the Lord Jesus
Christ, had received the revelation of the mystery even before the apostle Paul did.
Then what of the apostle Peter? We dare to say this same mystery was made known to him on the housetop of
Simon's residence in Joppa, when he had the vision of the descending sheet from Heaven and saw in it all manner of
beasts and creeping things, and heard the word from Heaven,
"What God hath cleansed call thou not common," or unclean.
This was to him an intimation that in Christ the distinction between Jew and Gentile was henceforth to be done away,
and he makes it perfectly clear that this was his conviction when he stood up to preach in the household of Cornelius
(Acts 10: 34 to end). Moreover, his epistles emphasize the same fact, though not in the full way that those of the
apostle Paul do. John and Peter are apostles. Are there any prophets who give evidence of having in measure at least
understood this truth? The greatest of all the New Testament prophets is Luke himself, and in his book of the Acts,
the mystery is plainly made known, though not taught doctrinally. We see God working in grace to unite Jew and
Gentile into one Body.
Turning back to Ephesians three, we find in verse seven that the apostle tells us that he was made a minister according
to the gift of the grace of God for the very purpose of making known this mystery. He says in verses eight and nine,
"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been bid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."
This had been his great responsibility throughout the years. Because of this, he had suffered bitter persecution, on
account of which he was even then in prison, but he is the more concerned that after his death there should be left on
record such a full statement of this truth that no one could lose sight of it.
CHAPTER FIVE
Further Examination of the Epistles
PASSING over for the present the Apostle Paul's presentation of the sevenfold unity of Christianity in Ephesians 4,

and his identification of the Body and the Bride in chapter 5, which we shall discuss later, we turn now to others of the
prison epistles to see if we can find the slightest intimation of a new revelation given after Paul reached Rome.
Unquestionably, Philippians was written during the Roman imprisonment. But we search its four precious chapters in
vain for the least suggestion that he has received anything new to unfold. In chapter 1, where he presents Christ as the
believer's life, he shows how thoroughly the evangelistic spirit had taken possession of him, so that even in his prisoncell
he was rejoicing that Christ was being preached whether in pretence or in truth, and his own desire is that this
same Christ may ever be magnified in his body, whether in life or in ,death. He urges the saints to stand fast in one
spirit contending for the very faith which he had already made known to them. There is not a hint that he has now
something new to reveal; that is, that the old dispensation to which they had hitherto belonged had come to a close,
and that a new one had begun. In chapter 2 he dwells on Christ as our Example, and shows how he himself and
Timothy and Epaphroditus during the years had sought to follow in Christ's steps, and this is still before his soul. In
the third chapter he recounts his past experiences and self-confidence in the old days before be was saved, and then
shows how the change was brought about by a sight of the risen Christ. From that moment on, he counted all things as
loss for the One who had won his heart, and he was pressing on toward the mark for the prize of the calling of God on
high in Christ Jesus. He calls upon them whom he designates as "perfect" to be thus minded. "Perfect" here means
"mature," or we might even say well-rounded, or well-balanced. Nothing is needed to give them this perfection in
addition to what they already had. Surely, if anywhere, this was the place to show them that hitherto they were but
babes, and had only received an initial revelation, but that now he had something for them of an altogether new
character which would perfect them in Christ. But there is no word of any such added truth. Nor yet in the last
chapter where he exhorts to unity and peace among themselves. May we not say that Paul is singularly remiss in not
sharing with his old converts at Philippi the new revelation he had received, if such a thing were really true?
But it was not true:-all the reasoning of the ultra-dispensationalists to the contrary notwithstanding;-for when we turn
over to Colossians we find him once more reiterating the same truths he had proclaimed for a generation. He shows
that two ministries had been committed to him from the first. He had been made a minister of the Gospel. That
Gospel has been preached in all the creation which is under heaven. He had also been made a minister of "the mystery
which hath been hidden from ages and generations, but now," he says, "is made manifest to His saints: to whom God
would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in (or, among)
you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may
present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: whereunto I also labor, striving according to His working, which worketh in
me mightily" (Col. 1: 26-29).
Let it be carefully observed that he is here covering his entire ministry. He had no such opportunity to preach to
multitudes while he was in his Roman, or as some think, his Caesarean prison at the time he wrote this epistle. But he
tells us what had characterized his ministry throughout the years. Other saints there were whom he had not met
personally, as well as those at Colosse. He thinks of the Laodicean believers, and he longs that they all may be
brought into the knowledge of this mystery. But it is not something new. It is that which has ever characterized his
teaching.
The Epistle of Titus is not of course a prison epistle at all, but it was written later than any of those that are so
designated, excepting Second Timothy. In this letter Paul instructs the younger preacher, Titus, as to the divine order
for local churches, the work of a true pastor, and the testimony committed to the servants of God. Surely here, if
anywhere, we should expect him to put before Titus the fact that the "transitional period" has now come to an end and
Titus must ring the changes as the ultra-dispensationalists do to-day, on "body truth," "closed doors," "Jewish
Gospels," "Kingdom Age," etc., etc., ad nauseam. But, no; none of these terms so frequently used and played upon
until one is wearied, are suggested to Titus. He is simply to go on preaching and teaching the very same things that
have been taught during his earlier association with the Apostle Paul.
The brief letter to Philemon we may pass over, as we would hardly expect to find anything doctrinal in it; and yet even
here if Paul's heart were throbbing with the joy of some absolutely new opening up of truth, we would almost wonder
how be could help saying a word about it, at least to his friend Philemon.
Hebrews was undoubtedly written very shortly before the apostle's martyrdom, granting that it is from the pen of Paul.
That this is so, I have tried to make clear in my book on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I shall not attempt to go into it

now. But in any case, it was undoubtedly written very shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, and here if
anywhere, one might expect these Hebrew believers to be told that the "kingdom age" is now over, "the transition
period" has now been finished, and it is for them to accept the new revelation of "body truth." But we search in vain
for anything of the kind. It is simply a normal presentation of the precious things of Christ, showing how completely
Old Testament types have had their fulfilment in Him and His finished work, and that all who believe now come under
the blessings of the new covenant.
Probably later than Hebrews is the second letter to Timothy. It was penned during Paul's second imprisonment, very
shortly before his death. As this occurred in A. D. 66 or 67, we may see how far along we have come and still no
mention of any new revelation. So far as the truth that is dealt with is concerned, Second Timothy might have been
written any time before the first imprisonment. It is in perfect harmony with all the apostle's previous ministry.
But now there are other Epistles to be considered. We have already seen that Paul makes no claim to being the sole
depository of the revelation of the mystery. He says it was made known to Christ's holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit, and so we turn to consider the writings of other apostles and prophets asking, "Have we in them any intimation
of a new revelation after Paul went to Rome?"
We may dismiss the Epistle of James as not touching on this question. It is addressed definitely to the twelve tribes
scattered abroad, and is God's last word, as it were, to those of Israel who were still more or less linked in spirit to the
synagogue. Bullingerites generally tell us that James was the first epistle to be written but this is absurd on the face of
it. It is quite evident that James is a corrective epistle. It must have been written after the doctrine of justification by
faith, as proclaimed by Paul, had been widely preached, for James writes to check those who were abusing that
doctrine and using it as an occasion for the flesh. No one can read chapter 2 thoughtfully without seeing that it is
based upon, and has in view throughout, Paul's teaching in Romans 4. James does not contradict Paul in the slightest
degree, but he does show that there is another justification than that of which Paul speaks. The great apostle to the
Gentiles deals particularly with justification by faith before God. James, the apostle to the twelve tribes, emphasizes
justification by works before men.
First Peter was probably written before Paul's second imprisonment. Second Peter was certainly written afterwards,
and all of Paul's letters were already in circulation when this epistle was penned. Note Peter's own words: "And
account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom
given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some
things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3: 15, 16). It is impossible to understand these verses excepting in the light of the
fact that all the Epistles of Paul were already in circulation. Does Peter then tell us that a new dispensation had come
in, and that the middle wall between Jew and Gentile having now for the first time been broken down and the one
Body formed, the believers to whom he writes, who were of Jewish extraction, are to recognize this new revelation?
Not at all. Peter has never heard of any such thing. He puts Paul's writings on the same plane as the other Scriptures,
but warns against the danger of misunderstanding, and so wresting them.
Long years after all the other apostles had gone home to heaven, we find the aged John still preserved in life and
caring for the churches of God. According to apparently reliable Church History, he made his home in Ephesus, and
moved about in old age among the other churches mentioned in the first three chapters of the Book of the Revelation,
those churches which the Bullingerites declare never existed in the past but are still to arise as Jewish Assemblies in
the Great Tribulation! Could anything be much more grotesque?
John's Epistles were written, according to the very best authority we have, some time in the last decade of the first
century of the Christian era. Weigh this well. Paul had been in heaven for nearly thirty years. John was an inspired
apostle, and surely would know, if any one did, of the new revelation and its importance. But we search his letters in
vain for the least reference to anything of the kind. In fact, we find the very opposite. False teaching had come in, and
he writes to garrison the hearts of the saints against it. In order to do this, he refers them back to that which was from
the beginning, namely, to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles, as a careful reading of his
first Epistle makes abundantly clear. There is not the slightest basis for the thought that a fuller unfolding of truth had
been vouchsafed to Paul and others about thirty years after Christ's ascension. It is the message that they had heard

from the beginning which he again commends to them.
Let us imagine the late Dr. Bullinger, or some of his lesser satellites, living, not in the twentieth century, but in the
closing days of the first century of the Christian era. Filled with their ideas of a new revelation given to Paul in prison,
can you by any stretch of the imagination think of them writing epistles or treatises in which no reference whatever is
made to the supposedly new doctrines? The fact of the matter is that these men today can scarcely open their mouths
without speaking of these things. No matter what text they begin to expound, they almost invariably wind up with
something about their system of rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and the importance of making the fine distinctions
which they imagine they see in the Word. Yet inspired men like Peter and John, and without particularly going into it,
we may add Jude, can expound and apply the Truth of God in the fullest possible way without any reference to
anything of the kind. What is the only legitimate conclusion? It is that this whole ultra-dispensational system is an
idle dream unsupported by the testimony of the inspired writings.
Error is never consistent. It always over-emphasizes some point generally unimportant and fails to recognize other
things of great importance. Heresy is simply a school of opinion in which something is particularly pressed out of
proportion to its logical place. Who would dare to say that this system we have been attempting to refute is not
therefore heretical? Mark, I do not mean to class it with what Peter calls "damnable heresies," but it is certainly
schismatic, and its votaries constitute a special school of opinion within the professed Church of God, a school that
attaches great importance to something which after all is not evident to the vast majority of devoted and godly
believers. That the effect of this can only be division and harmful, is not only self-evident, but has been abundantly
manifest in many places. The Holy Spirit says, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3: 10, 11). This is as
certainly the Word of God as anything else revealed in the Scripture of Truth.
CHAPTER SIX
Is the Church the Bride of the Lamb?
ONE of the first positions generally taken by the ultra-dispensationalists is that it is unthinkable that the Church should
be the Body of Christ, and yet at the same time be identified with the Bride of the Lamb. They insist that there is a
mixing of figures here which is utterly untenable. How, they ask with scorn, could the Church be both the Bride and a
part of the Body of the Bridegroom? Some even go farther and suggest that Christians who all down through the
centuries have had no difficulty as to the two figures (recognizing the fact that they are figures, and therefore that there
need be no confusion in thought when it comes to harmonizing both), are actually guilty of charging Deity with
spiritual polygamy! I would not put such an abominable thought in writing, but it is their own expression which I
have heard again and again. They point out, what all Bible students readily admit, that in the Old Testament, Israel is
called the bride and the wife of Jehovah. "Then," they exclaim, "how can the Lord have two wives without being
guilty of the very thing that He Himself condemns in His creatures here on earth?"
In view of such absurd deductions, it will be necessary to examine with some care just how these figures are used. In
the first place, we find God using a number of different figurative expressions in speaking of Israel. He declares
Himself to be their Father, that is, the Father of the nation, and Israel is called His son. "Out of Egypt have I called
My son" (Hosea 11: 1), and, "Let My son go, that be may serve Ale" (Exod. 4: 23). In other places similar expressions
are used, and yet the prophets again and again speak of Israel as the wife of Jehovah, and the later prophets depict her
as a divorced wife because of her unfaithfulness, some day to be received back again, when she has been purged from
her sins. But it is important to see that a divorced wife can never again be a bride, even though she may be forgiven
and restored to her wifely estate. What incongruity do we have here if we are to interpret Scripture on the principle of
the Bullingerites. Here is a son who is also a wife. What utter absurdity!
Then again we have Israel depicted as a vine. "God brought a vine out of Egypt" (Ps. 80: 8), and, "Israel is an empty
vine; he bringeth forth fruit for himself" (Hosea 10: 1). In many other places, the same figure is used. Elsewhere we
have this favored nation spoken of as the priests of the Lord, occupying a special position throughout all the

millennium, as though they were intermediaries between the Gentiles and Jehovah Himself. Other similitudes are
used, but these are enough to show that there is no attempt made in Scripture to harmonize every figure. Each one is
used as suits God's purpose for the moment. So the nation which at one time is viewed as a son is seen on another
occasion as a vine, and elsewhere as a wife, and again as a nation of priests.
This being so in connection with Israel, why need we be surprised if a similar diversity of terms is used in connection
with the Church? When our Lord first introduces the subject of the new order, He speaks of the Church as a building:
"Upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. 16:18). The apostle Paul views the Church in the same way in 1
Corinthians 3: 9, 10), "I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. Ye are God's building." Again in
Ephesians 2: 19-22: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of
the household of God: and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom
ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." In regard to this passage, please take note that
if the Bullingerites are correct, we have here a building suspended in the air with a great gap between the foundation
and the superstructure; for this building is said to rest upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, but according
to the views of those we are discussing, we must separate in a very definite way the New Testament apostles and
prophets of the book of Acts from the Ephesian church, which is supposed to be a different company altogether. The
absurdity of this becomes the more apparent as we see how we would have to do damage to the picture of the building
as used here by the apostle Paul. The fact is the Church of Acts and that of the prison epistles is one and indivisible.
In I Timothy 3: 15, he speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth." The apostle Peter looks at the Church in exactly the same way, as a company of living stones built upon the
Living Stone, our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 2: 5).
We have already seen that the figure of the Body is used in a number of Paul's writings, not only in the prison Epistles,
but in Romans and 1 Corinthians, to set forth the intimate relationship subsisting between Christ in glory and His
people on earth, whereas the house expresses stability, and tells us that the Church is a dwelling place for God in this
world, as the temple was of old. The Body speaks of union with Christ, by the indwelling Spirit. But Paul sees no
incongruity whatever in changing the figure from that of the Body to the Bride. In the fifth chapter of Ephesians he
glides readily from one to the other, and no violence whatever is done to either view. He shows us that a man's wife is
to be regarded as his own body. And in the latter part of that chapter, where he goes back to the marriage relationship
as originally established by God, he says:
"Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a
glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For
no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for
we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father
and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but
I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife
even as himself: and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (vers. 24-33).
Surely nothing could be plainer than that we are to understand the relationship of Adam and Eve at the very beginning
was intended by God to set forth the great mystery of Christ and the Church. Writing to the Corinthians at an earlier
date, he said, "I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ," and Christian behavior is shown to spring from the
responsibility connected with that espousal. The Church is viewed as an affianced bride, not yet married-, but called
upon to be faithful to her absent Lord until the day when she will be openly acknowledged by Him as His Bride. It is
this glorious occasion that John brings before us in the nineteenth chapter of the book of Revelation. It is of no earthly
bride he is speaking, but of the heavenly. After the destruction of the false harlot, Babylon the Great, the marriage
supper of the Lamb is celebrated in the Father's house, and all saints are called upon to rejoice because the marriage of
the Lamb has come and His wife hath made herself ready. At the judgment-seat of Christ, she receives from His hand

the linen garments in which she is to be arrayed at the marriage feast. Notice that on this occasion we have not only
the Bride and the Bridegroom, but we read, "Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb."
These invited guests are distinguished from the Bride herself. They of course are another group of redeemed sinners,
namely, Old Testament saints, and possibly some Tribulation saints who have been martyred for Christ's sake. These
are the friends of the Bridegroom who rejoice in His happiness when He takes His Bride to Himself.
All down through the Christian centuries believers have revelled in the sweetness of the thought of the bridal
relationship, setting forth, as no other figure does, the intensity of Christ's love for His own. How truly we may sing:
"The bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear Bridegroom's face;
I will not gaze on glory,
But on my King of grace;
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Immanuel's land."
How much we would lose if we lost this! And yet one is pained sometimes to realize how insensible Christians who
ought to know better, can be as to its preciousness. I remember on one occasion hearing an advocate of the system we
are reviewing exclaim, "I am not part of the Bride; I am part of the Bridegroom Himself. I belong to Christ's Body,
and His Body is far more precious to Him than His Bride." I replied, "You mean then that you think far more of your
own body than you do of your wife! " He was rather taken back, as he might well be.
But after all, if Israel is a divorced wife to be restored some day, and the Church is also a bride, is there not ground for
what some have called "spiritual polygamy?" Certainly not. Similar figures may be used in each dispensation to
illustrate spiritual realities; and then it is important to see that Israel is distinctively called the wife of Jehovah, whereas
the Church is the Bride of the Lamb. Israel's nuptial relationship is with God Himself apart altogether from any
question of incarnation. The Church is the Bride of the Incarnate One who became the Lamb of God for our
redemption. Who would want to lose the blessedness of this?
In the last chapter of the book of the Revelation, we have added confirmation as to the correctness of the position
taken in this paper. In verse 16, our Lord Jesus declares Himself as the Coming One, saying, "I am the Root and
Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." In the very next verse we are told, "And the Spirit and the Bride
say, Come." Here we have the Church's response to our Lord's declaration that He is the Morning Star. The morning
star shines out before the rising of the sun. It is as the Morning Star Christ comes for His Church. Unto Israel, He will
arise as the Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings. And so here the moment the announcement is made
which indicates His near return, the Spirit who dwells in the Church, and the Bride actuated by the Spirit, cry with
eager longing, "Come," for the word is addressed to Him. How truly absurd it would be to try to bring Israel in here as
though the earthly people were those responding to the Saviour's voice during this present age!
But so determined are these ultra-dispensationalists to take from the Church everything that is found in the book of
Revelation, that they even insist that the letters addressed to the churches in chapters 2 and 3 are all for Israel too.
Ignoring the fact that the apostle John had labored for years in the Roman proconsular Province of Asia, that he was
thoroughly familiar with all these seven churches, they nevertheless even go so far as to deny that some of these
churches had any existence in the first century of the Christian era, when John wrote the Apocalypse, although Sir
William Ramsay's researches have proven the contrary. On the other hand ' they declare that all of these churches are
to rise up in the future after the Body has been removed to Heaven, and that then the seven letters will have their
application, but have no present bearing upon the consciences of the saints. I cannot conceive of anything more
Satanic than this. Here are churches actually raised up of God through the preaching of the Gospel. Ephesus we know
well. Laodicea is mentioned in the letter to the Colossians. The other churches we may be sure existed at the time and
in exactly the state that John depicts, and the risen Christ addresses these churches in the most solemn way, and seven

times over calls upon all exercised souls to give heed to what he says to each one, crying, "He that hath an ear, let him
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." In these letters, we have depicted every possible condition in which the
churches of God can be found from Apostolic days to the end of the Christian era. More than that: we have in a
mystic way the moral and spiritual principles of the entire course of Church History portrayed. All this should have
immense weight with us as believers, and should speak loudly to our consciences; but along comes the Bullingerite
and, with a wave of his interpretative wand, dismisses them entirely for the present age, airily declaring that they have
no message for us whatever, that they are all Jewish, and will only have their place in the Great Tribulation after the
Church is gone! And thus the people of God who accept this unscriptural system are robbed of not only the precious
things in which these letters abound, but their consciences become indifferent to the solemn admonitions found
therein. Surely this is a masterpiece of Satanic strategy, whereby under the plea of rightly dividing the Word of Truth,
the Scriptures are so wrongly divided that they cease to have any message for God's people today, and the Word of the
Lord is made of no effect by this unscriptural tradition. And yet the Lord in instructing John, says, "Write the things
which are." It is the present continuous tense. It might be rendered, "The things which are now going on." "Not at all,"
exclaims the Bullingerite. "These are the things which are not going on, neither will they have any place so long as
the Church of God is on earth." Others may accept this as deep teaching and advanced truth. Personally, I reject it as a
Satanic perversion calculated to destroy the power of the Word of God over the souls of His people.
CHAPTER SEVEN
Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in
the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God?
IT is most distressing to one who has revelled in the grace of God for years, but has recognized on the other hand that
grace produces loving obedience in the heart of the believer, to read the puerile and childish diatribes of the ultradispensationalists,
as they inveigh against the Christian ordinances as though observance of these in some way
contravened the liberty of Grace. Insisting that Paul had a new ministry revealed to him after Acts 28, and that this
ministry is given only in the so-called prison epistles, they make a great deal of the fact that in these epistles we do not
have any distinct instruction as to the baptizing of believers, or the observance of the Lord's Supper.
We have already seen, I trust clearly, that Paul himself disavows any new revelation having been given him after his
imprisonment, but insists that the mystery was that very message which he had already made known to all nations for
the obedience of faith. It was but part of that whole counsel of God which he had declared to the Ephesians long
before his arrest. These brethren, by a process of sophistical reasoning, try to prove that baptism belonged only to an
earlier dispensation and was in some sense meritorious, as though it had in itself saving virtue, but that since the
dispensation of grace has been fully revealed, there is no place for baptism, because of changed conditions for
salvation. To state this argument is but to expose its fallacy.
Let one point be absolutely clear: No one was ever saved in any dispensation on any other ground than the finished
work of Christ. In all the ages before the cross, God justified men by faith; in all the years since, men have been
justified in exactly the same way. Adam believed God and was clothed with coats of skin, a picture of one becoming
the righteousness of God in Christ. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Nevertheless, afterwards he was circumcised; but that circumcision, the apostle tells us, was simply a seal of the
righteousness he had by faith. And throughout all the Old Testament dispensation, however legalistic Jews may have
observed the ordinance of circumcision and thought of it as having in itself some saving virtue, it still remained in
God's sight, as in the beginning, only a seal, where there was genuine faith, of that righteousness which He imputed.
The difficulty with many who reason as these Bullingerites do, is that they cannot seem to understand the difference
between the loving loyal obedience of a devoted heart, and a legal obedience which is offered to God as though it were
in itself meritorious. No one was ever saved through the sacrifices offered under law, for it is not possible that the
blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. Nevertheless, wherever there was real faith in Israel, the sacrifices
were offered because of the instruction given in the Word of God, and in these sacrifices the work of Christ was
pictured continually.

When John the Baptist came in the way of righteousness, he called on men to confess their sinfulness and their just
desert of death by baptism, and so we read that the publicans and sinners "justified God, being baptized with the
baptism of John." There was no merit in the baptism. It was the divinely appointed way of acknowledging their
sinfulness and need of a Saviour. Therefore it is called a baptism "unto repentance for the remission of sins." They
were like men in debt, giving their notes to the divine creditor. A note does not pay a debt but it is an
acknowledgment of indebtedness. Christ's baptism was simply Ms endorsement of all of these notes. When He said to
John, who would have hindered Him from being baptized, "Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness," it was as though He said, "In this way I pledge Myself to meet every righteous demand of the throne of
God on behalf of these confessed sinners." And this is surely what He had in mind when, three years later, He
exclaimed, "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12: 50). On
the cross He met the claims of righteousness and thus fulfilled the meaning of His baptism.
Christian baptism has its beginning in resurrection. It was the risen Christ about to be glorified who commissioned
His apostles to go out, not simply to Jews, observe, nor yet to proclaim a second offer of the kingdom, as some say,
but to carry the Gospel to men of all nations, baptizing those who professed to believe, in (or, unto) the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This we see them literally doing throughout the early days of the Church,
as recorded in the Book of Acts. Wherever the Gospel is preached, baptism is linked with it, not as part of the Gospel,
for Paul distinctly says, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," but as an outward expression of faith
in the Gospel. It is evident in the Book of Acts that there is a somewhat different presentation of this, according as to
whether the message is addressed to Jews in outward covenant relation with God or to Gentiles who are strangers to
the covenants of promise. Paul calls these two aspects of the one Gospel, the Gospel of the circumcision and the
Gospel of the uncircumcision. The Jew being already a member of a nation which, up to the cross, had been
recognized as in covenant relationship with God, was called upon to be baptized to save himself from that untoward
generation. That is, to step out, as it were, from the nation, no longer claiming national privilege, nor yet being exposed
to national judgment. With the Gentile, it was otherwise. He was simply called upon to believe the Gospel, and
believing it, to confess his faith in baptism. And this abides to the end of the age as our Lord Himself clearly declared
in the closing verses of Matthew 2 8. There has never been any change in the order.
It has been said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit superseded water baptism, but Scripture teaches the very contrary.
Cornelius and his household were baptized with the Holy Spirit when they believed the Word spoken by Peter. But
the apostle, turning to his Jewish brethren, immediately asks: "Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And they were at once baptized by authority of the Lord Jesus,
which is what the expression "in the name of" involves. This was not a meritorious act. It was a blessed and precious
privilege granted to this Gentile household upon the evidence of their faith in Christ.
It has been objected that the apostle Paul himself makes light of baptism and was really glad that he had not baptized
many at Corinth. It is surely a most shifty kind of exegesis that would lead any one to make such a statement. In the
record in Acts, where we read of Paul's ministry in Corinth, we are told that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed
and were baptized. Paul did not himself do the baptizing, save in a few instances, but he certainly saw that it was
done, and the Holy Spirit evidently quotes the record with approval. Why then did Paul thank God in First Corinthians
1, that he had baptized so few? The answer is perfectly plain. Because the Corinthians were making much of human
leaders and he saw the tendency to glory in man. He knew that if there were many there who had been baptized by
him, they would be likely, under the prevailing conditions, to pride themselves upon the fact that he, the apostle to the
Gentiles, had been the one who baptized them. But far from making light of baptism, when he chides them for their
sectarian spirit, he shows them that the only name worthy of exaltation is the name of the One by whose authority they
had been baptized.
As to the various disputed scriptures in Romans 6: 3, 4; Colossians 2: 12; Ephesians 4: 5; and Galatians 3: 27, where
baptism is mentioned without any definite indication as to whether it is water or Spirit, one thing at least is perfectly
clear. Water baptism is necessarily implied, because Spirit baptism is but a figurative expression, and water baptism
was the act upon which the figure was based. This comes out in the first mention of Spirit baptism. "I indeed," says
John, "baptize you with water" (this then was the actual literal baptism), "but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit
and with fire." It is not literal baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is not literal fire, but figurative. If this be but kept in
mind, there would be no confusion. Baptism in water pictures both burial and resurrection. On this Paul bases his

instruction in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12. Thus water baptism marks people out as belonging to Christ by
profession, and therefore is the basic thought in Galatians 3: 27, even though it is by the Spirit's baptism that people are
actually united to Christ.
There has been much disputation regarding the passage in Ephesians 4, but without laying special stress on the
importance of water baptism, it is very evident that the passage would have no meaning if water baptism, as well as
that of the Spirit, were not in view. Let me try to make this plain. In the opening verses, the apostle calls upon the
Ephesian believers, and of course all Christians, to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they have been called, and
he lays stress on the importance of endeavoring to keep the Spirit's unity in the bond of peace. Then he explains this
unity as being sevenfold. In verse 4 he emphasizes three special things, one Body, one Spirit, and one hope. Now
there can be no question that the Spirit is brought in here as forming the Body, and the Spirit forms the Body by what
is called elsewhere the baptism of the Spirit. Then in verse 5 we have another trio, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Here it seems to me clearly enough we have, not a duplication of what we have already had in verse 4, but something
that is more outward. One Lord in whom we believe; one faith that we confess; and one baptism by which we express
our allegiance to that Lord and that faith. In verse 6 we have God Himself as the Father of all, the Founder of this
blessed unity.
Now without going into any disputation as to whether the term "one baptism," is to be confined to the baptism of the
Spirit, or the baptism of water, it is certainly evident that it at least implies water. No man confesses his faith in Christ
by the baptism of the Holy Spirit alone, for millions have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and yet the world knows
nothing of it. On the other hand, of course, many have faith in Christ who have never been baptized in water, but that
does not alter the fact that, according to the Lord's own instructions, water baptism should follow confession of Christ.
The Lord has never rescinded this order, and for men to attempt to do so is but to substitute human authority for
divine.
The statement has been made that inasmuch as all carnal ordinances were abolished in the cross, this includes baptism
and the Lord's Supper. However, to merely state this is to refute it, inasmuch as Christian baptism was not given until
just before the Lord's ascension, and the Lord's Supper was given from heaven to the apostle Paul by special
revelation, long after Christ's ascension (1 Cor. 11: 23, 24). To read into such a passage as Hebrews 6: 1, 2 any
reference to Christian baptism, is ignorance so colossal that it does not even deserve an answer. The apostle there is
definitely referring to Judaism in contrast with Christianity. The "doctrine of baptisms" is the teaching of washings
under law.
To the lover of the Lord Jesus Christ there can be nothing legal about baptism. It is simply the glad expression of a
grateful heart recognizing its identity with Christ in death, burial, and resurrection. Many of us look back to the
moment when we were thus baptized as one of the most precious experiences we have ever known.
All ultra-dispensationalists do not reject the Lord's Supper, but those who are rigidly tied up to the prison epistles and
have practically no other Bible, set this blessed ordinance aside in the same curt way that they dismiss water baptism.
We are told that in a spiritual dispensation there is no place for outward observances. And yet, singularly enough,
these brethren meet together for worship and prayer, and that very frequently upon the first day of the week, though
they are almost a unit in denying that this is the Lord's Day. They insist, though the Holy Ghost has Himself changed
the term; that the Lord's Day is identical with the Day of the Lord; and so the observance of the first day of the week is
with them simply gross legality. Think of parting with all the holy privileges of the Lord's Day on the plea that it is a
mark of higher spirituality to make this a common day like any other. I know that some quote as authority for this,
Paul's words in Romans 14: 5: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." But an examination of the entire passage in which this verse is found,
will make it clear that the apostle is here referring to Jewish distinctions between clean and unclean meats, and holy
and common days, and he would have Gentile believers respect even the legal feeling of their Jewish brethren in these
matters. The enlightened Christian of course in a very real sense esteems every day alike, that is, every day is devoted
to the glory of God, but this does not mean that he fails to differentiate between days on which he participates in the
ordinary activities of the world, and the first day of the week, which is largely set aside for spiritual exercises. We
have known men to glory in their liberty, as they called it, who could take part in Christian service on Lord's Day
morning and spend the afternoon golfing, or in some other more worldly way, and this on pretence of a higher

spirituality than that of those who are supposed to be legal, because they use the hours of the entire day either for their
own spiritual upbuilding or for the blessing of others.
It is strange that many, who insist that there are no ordinances or commandments connected with the dispensation of
pure grace, should take up collections in their services and urge people to give as unto the Lord to support their
ministry. logically, they should tell people that giving is legal and belongs to the old dispensation, but has no place in
the present age, when we simply receive but give nothing in return! The passage already referred to in 1 Corinthians
11 makes it clear that though the apostle Paul did not receive his instruction concerning the observance of the Lord's
Supper from the twelve, it was given to him by special revelation from heaven, thus indicating what an important place
it has in this age. Surely one is guilty of gross perversion of Scripture who dares to teach that since Paul's
imprisonment, the Lord's Supper should no longer be observed, when the Holy Ghost has said, "As often as ye eat this
bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come."
The most sacred hours that many of us have ever known have been those spent with fellow-believers seated at the
table of the Lord, recognizing in the broken bread and poured-out wine, the memorials of our Saviour's death, and thus
in a new way entering into and appropriating the reality of which the symbols speak. We may be thought legal,
because we refuse to surrender such precious privileges at the behest of some of our self-styled expositors of pure
grace, but we remember "that the grace of God salvation bringing for all men, hath appeared, teaching us that denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for that
blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and until He come, by His
grace, to remember Him in the way of His own appointment.
Concluding Remarks
IN closing this review of the system of teaching which we have had before us, I do not think it necessary to go into the
questions at any length of Soul-sleeping and Annihilation (conditional immortality), or the opposite view of the final
restoration of Universalism. As already mentioned, the followers of the late Dr. E. W. Bullinger have largely taken up
with the first type of teaching in Great Britain; whereas in America many of them have supported Universalist views.
But these heretical teachings have been so ably answered on many different occasions by other writers, that it would
seem like a work of supererogation to go into them now. I only mention them, in fact, as a warning to those who are
dabbling with this system, for that which looks so innocent in the beginning often ends up in complete departure from
"the faith once delivered to the saints."
One who was a leading advocate of Bullingerism on the west coast for many years, has put out literature recently
which denies the Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, the true personality of the Holy Spirit, and many other
important truths. In order to support his restoration system, he has put out a private translation of the New Testament
which, by his disciples, is generally accepted as absolute authority. Making no pretence to scholarship myself, but
simply seeking to be a reverent student of the English Bible with whatever help I have been enabled to glean
throughout more than forty years of studying the Word, I hesitated to pronounce upon many of the peculiar translations
in this new New Testament, but several years ago it was my privilege to spend some time in company with the late Dr.
A. T. Robertson, undoubtedly the foremost Greek scholar in America, and possibly without a peer elsewhere. I asked
him if he had ever examined the Version in question. With a look of disgust, he said, "I certainly did. The editor had
the impertinence to send me a copy, and asked me to commend his ignorance to others."
I said, "Doctor, would you give me in a few words your real estimate of this work, and give me the privilege of
quoting you as occasion may arise?"
He replied, "I can give it to you in two words, Piffle and Puffle, and you may tell any one that that is my estimate of
this vaunted translation."
In giving publicity to this conversation, my desire is to warn those who are carried away by great pretence to learning,
who may not themselves be familiar with the original languages in which the Bible was written, and are therefore

easily impressed by a parade of assumed scholarship.
Generally speaking, I have sought to avoid personalities in this discussion. Many otherwise excellent men have taken
up these new views. I have no quarrel with men. I do not desire to reflect upon or belittle any of them. It is the Truth
of God that is in question, and my appeal is therefore to the Word itself.
Singularly enough, since these papers began running serially, I have received abusive letters from a number of
different teachers accusing me of attacking them. One such writes that he is neither a Bullingerite nor an ultradispensationalist,
and resents being so designated. Each one must draw his own conclusions as to whether he holds the
views I have endeavored to refute. "I speak as unto wise men. judge ye what I say."
In bringing these papers to a close, I would urge interested readers to remember the exhortation of the apostle, "Prove
all things; hold fast that which is good."